Ill-defined return to sport criteria and inconsistent unsuccessful return rates caused by various reasons not necessarily related to treatment after superior labral treatments: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: The aims of this systematic review were to determine (1) which criteria are used to determine return to sport (RTS), (2) the number of patients that are unable to RTS following any superior labral pathophysiology treatment and (3) which reasons are reported for not returning. METHODS: A systematic review was performed across 5 databases, including studies that report rates for RTS following any treatment of superior labral pathophysiology. Study quality was assessed using the MINORS criteria. Definitions for nRTS were extracted as reported in the studies. The ranges of no return to sport (nRTS) and no return to pre-injury level (nRTPL) were summarized. Reasons for nRTS and nRTPL were categorized using a predefined coding scheme. RESULTS: Among 45 studies with level of evidence ranging from II to IV, 1857 patients were involved in sports, 78% (n=1453) of whom underwent superior labral reattachment, 21% (n=381) biceps tenodesis, and 9.4% (n=175) non-operative treatment. None of the studies provided criteria for RTS and two studies provided criteria for return to pre-injury level (RTPL). The ranges of nRTS and nRTPL varied following superior labral reattachment (0-60%, n=206; 0-89%, n=424, respectively), biceps tenodesis (0-25%, n=43; 3,8-48%, n =78) and nonoperative treatment (11-75%, n=62; 18-100%, n=78). Reasons for nRTS and nRTPL were related to physical sensations (pain, feeling of instability, discomfort, weakness, lack of motion), psychological factors (fear of reinjury, lack of confidence), personal factors (lifestyle change, social reasons) and injury at another site. CONCLUSION: Criteria for determining successful RTS and RTPL following superior labral pathophysiology treatment were not reported by the majority of studies. The nRTS and nRTPL rates varied greatly within and between treatments. The reasons for this unsuccessful return were diverse and related to physical sensations, psychological factors, personal factors and injury unrelated to treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; Systematic Review.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Show No Relevant Change Between 1-Year and 2-Year Follow-Up After Treatment for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 1-year and 2-year follow-up after treatment for anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials and prospective studies that evaluated and reported PROMs after a capsulolabral repair (with or without remplissage), bone augmentation, or nonoperative treatment to treat anterior shoulder instability at both 1-year and 2-year follow-up were included. PROMs were compared between 1-year and 2-year follow-up; forest plots with mean difference were created to compare baseline, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up; and scatterplots were created to visualize clinical improvement over time. RESULTS: Fourteen studies, comprising 923 patients, with levels of evidence Level I and II were included. Nine PROMs, of which predominantly were the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI; 11 studies; 79%), were evaluated. Minimal to no statistically significant change in WOSI, Oxford Shoulder Instability Score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Subjective Shoulder Value, Simple Shoulder Test, Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), Quick DASH, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, or visual analog scale was observed between 1-year and 2-year follow-up. Pooling of the WOSI, Oxford Shoulder Instability Score, ASES, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation demonstrated improvement from baseline to 1-year follow-up and minimal to no change between 1-year and 2-year follow-up. Scatterplots of the WOSI and ASES demonstrated the most improvement within 6 months and no clear improvement after 1-year follow-up. Recurrence rates increased with time but varied between studies. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to recurrence rates, which have been shown to increase with time, minimal to no statistically significant change was observed for any of the included PROMs between 1-year and 2-year follow-up. This finding raises the question as to whether it is necessary to evaluate PROMs in long-term follow-up of patients after shoulder stabilization treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.

The minimal important change is not a universal fixed value across diagnoses when using the FAOS and FAAM in patients undergoing elective foot and ankle surgery.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to calculate region and diagnosis-specific minimal important changes (MICs) of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) in patients requiring foot and ankle surgery and to assess their variability across different foot and ankle diagnoses. METHODS: The study used routinely collected data from patients undergoing elective foot and ankle surgery. Patients had been invited to complete the FAOS and FAAM preoperatively and at 3-6 months after surgery, along with two anchor questions encompassing change in pain and daily function. Patients were categorised according to region of pathology and subsequent diagnoses. MICs were calculated using predictive modelling (MICPRED) and receiver operating characteristic curve (MICROC) method and evaluated according to strict credibility criteria. RESULTS: Substantial variability of the MICs between forefoot and ankle/hindfoot region was observed, as well as among specific foot and ankle diagnoses, with MICPRED and MICROC values ranging from 7.8 to 25.5 points and 9.4 to 27.8, respectively. Despite differences between MICROC and MICPRED estimates, both calculation methods exhibited largely consistent patterns of variation across subgroups, with forefoot conditions systematically showing smaller MICs than ankle/hindfoot conditions. Most MICs demonstrated high credibility; however, the majority of the MICs for the FAOS symptoms subscale and forefoot conditions exhibited insufficient or low credibility. CONCLUSION: The MICs of the FAOS and FAAM vary across foot and ankle diagnoses in patients undergoing elective foot and ankle surgery and should not be used as a universal fixed value, but recognised as contextual parameters. This can help clinicians and researchers in more accurate interpretation of the FAOS and FAAM change scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Low annual revision rate in ankle distraction for ankle osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Ankle osteoarthritis severely impacts patients' mental and physical quality of life. Besides total ankle replacement and ankle arthrodesis, ankle distraction has been shown to be a promising alternative. The primary aim of the present study was to determine the annual revision rates (ARRs) after ankle distraction. The secondary aim was to obtain an overview of patient-reported outcome measures and functional outcomes. METHODS: A literature search until November 2023 was performed. Methodological quality was assessed using the methodological index for non-randomised studies criteria. Primary outcome was the ARR which was log-transformed and pooled using a random effects model. Secondary outcomes were pooled using a simplified pooling technique and included the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society Ankle-Hindfoot Scale (AOFAS), range of motion (ROM) and post-operative complications. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 287 articles, of which 10 studies, comprising 602 patients, were included. The patients had a pooled mean age of 47 years (range of means: 40-68) and a mean follow-up of 35 months (range of means: 24-48). The overall methodological quality was moderate to fair. The pooled ARR after ankle distraction was 4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3%-7%). Pooling of AOFAS showed mean 26-point improvement (from 54 to 80). Additionally, ROM dorsiflexion improved at 5°, and the plantarflexion remained at 31°. The overall complication rate was 41% (95% CI, 35%-48%), of which 77% (95% CI, 67%-85%) were pin-tract infections. CONCLUSION: Ankle distraction results in an ARR of 4% (95% CI, 3%-7%) with clinically relevant improved AOFAS scores. The overall complication rate is 41% and is mainly attributable to treatable pin-tract infections (77% of recorded complications). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The Diagnostic Characteristic and Reproducibility of Bone Scintigraphy Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography for Diagnosing Aseptic Loosening of Uncemented Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to investigate the diagnostic characteristics of bone scintigraphy single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (BS-SPECT/CT) for diagnosing aseptic loosening after uncemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and to evaluate the following aspects: how to manage inconclusive results, the interobserver reliability, and the location of tracer uptake between symptomatic cases with and without aseptic loosening. METHODS: In this study, 180 patients who had uncemented TKA and persistent knee pain suspected of aseptic loosening were included. As part of routine medical care, BS-SPECT/CT was used, and its results were compared with the reference standard, which involved revision surgery for aseptic loosening or a 12-month follow-up without revision or imaging. Inconclusive BS-SPECT/CT results were considered either negative (best-case scenario) or positive (worst-case scenario). Sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratios (LRs), and positive/negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by comparing the diagnostic characteristics between cases with a follow-up of less and more than 2 years of follow-up. The anatomical distribution of tracer uptake and interobserver reliability were also evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 180 BS-SPECT/CT scans conducted, 22 were determined positive, 113 negative, and 45 inconclusive. The best-case scenario showed a sensitivity of 66.7%, specificity of 93.8%, +LR 10.8, -LR 0.4, PPV 54.6%, and NPV 96.2%. In contrast, the worst-case scenario had a sensitivity of 94.4%, specificity of 69.1%, +LR 3.1, -LR 0.1, PPV 25.4%, and NPV 99.1%. Sensitivity analyses revealed no relevant differences in characteristics between the 2 TKA-interval groups. The interobserver reliability was fair-to-moderate (κ = 0.39; 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.60), with an estimated agreement of 79% (95% confidence interval 70 to 87). Four prosthetic zones had a notably higher proportion of cases with tracer uptake in those with aseptic loosening compared to those without. CONCLUSIONS: The test characteristics of BS-SPECT/CT were deemed appropriate in patients who have complaints of uncemented TKA suspected of aseptic loosening. Inconclusive cases were best categorized as negative, especially in patients who have a short interval between TKA and the first BS-SPECT/CT. Increased tracer uptake in 4 prosthetic zones was observed in cases of aseptic loosening, although interobserver reliability was fair to moderate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Diagnostic Retrospective Cohort Study.

Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Post-Traumatic Knee: Revision Risks and Functional Outcomes Compared to Osteoarthritic Knees. A Report of Primary Procedures From the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for post-traumatic arthritis (PTA) poses higher challenges and increased risks of complications compared to TKA for osteoarthritis (OA). This study aimed to compare implant survivorships, reasons for revision, and patient-reported outcome measures between OA and PTA as indications for TKA. METHODS: We selected all primary TKAs for PTA or OA between 2007 and 2020 from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Interventies). The study included 3,897 TKA procedures for PTA (median follow-up 4.6 years; interquartile range: 2.2, 7.3) and 255,259 procedures for OA (median follow-up 4.7 years; interquartile range 2.2, 7.6). A total of 10,480 revision procedures were performed across both groups (238 in PTA knees; 10,242 in OA knees). We analyzed the prevalence of preoperative comorbidities and postoperative complications, as well as the reasons for revision, and calculated the implant survival rates. RESULTS: The survival revision rate in the OA group was significantly lower at both follow-up moments (5- and 10- years). The likelihood for revision was increased in TKA for PTA compared to TKA for OA (hazards ratio: 1.16 [95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.33], P = .03). The most common reason for a revision was instability and arthrofibrosis in the PTA group compared to patellar pain for the OA group. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated an increased risk for revision for any reason in TKA for PTA compared to OA. Revision for instability and arthrofibrosis were more prevalent in the PTA group, while revision for patellar pain was less prevalent compared to TKA for OA.

The Rise of the Direct Anterior Approach: Trends, Learning Curves, and Patient Characteristics of 63,182 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI).

BACKGROUND: The use of the direct anterior approach (DAA) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has steadily increased in the Netherlands since 2007. The aim of this study was to outline how the DAA has been implemented in the Netherlands. Moreover, we investigated the learning curve of the DAA at a hospital level, and explored patient characteristics of the DAA compared with other approaches and during the learning phase after implementing the DAA. METHODS: In this population-based cohort study, we included all primary THAs between 2007 and 2020 (n = 342,473) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. For hospitals implementing the DAA (n > 20), patients were categorized in 4 experience groups using the date of surgery: 1 to 50, 51 to 100, 101 to 150, or > 150. Subsequently, data from different hospitals were pooled and survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Adjusted revision rates were calculated using mixed Cox proportional hazard models (frailty). RESULTS: The use of the DAA gradually rose from 0.2% in 2007 to 41% of all primary THAs in 2020. A total of 64 (56%) hospitals implemented the DAA. However, not all hospitals continued using this approach. After implementation, the 5-year survival rate for the first 50 procedures was significantly lower (96% confidence interval [CI] 95.8 to 97.2) compared to >150 procedures (98% CI 97.7 to 98.1). Multivariable Cox hazard analyses demonstrated a higher risk of revision during the first 50 procedures compared with >150 procedures (hazard ratio 1.6, CI 1.3 to 2.0). CONCLUSIONS: The use of DAA for primary THA significantly increased. For hospitals implementing DAA, a considerable learning curve with increased revision risk was seen.

The outcomes of conversion of hemiarthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty, a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Acetabular erosion is an important complication in hemiarthroplasty and may lead to total hip arthroplasty as a conversion. The results of total hip arthroplasty as a conversion remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcome of total hip arthroplasty as a conversion with primary total hip arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PRISMA guidelines were used and Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane libraries were searched. Both, studies comparing the outcome of total hip arthroplasty as a conversion with the outcome of primary total hip arthroplasty and the outcome of cohort studies limited to total hip arthroplasty as a conversion, were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non Randomized Studies checklist. Meta-analysis was performed concerning pooled annual revision, dislocation and infection rates. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies were available for analysis; four comparative studies and 23 cohort studies. Comparative studies were defined as high quality and cohort studies as medium quality. Analysis revealed a significantly higher overall revision risk (Hazard Ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.14) after total hip arthroplasty as a conversion compared to primary total hip arthroplasty. The annual revision rate of total hip arthroplasty as a conversion was 1.63% (95% confidence interval 1.14 to 2.33) in the comparative studies and 1.40% (95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.66) in the cohort studies. A pooled infection rate of 4.34% (95% confidence interval 2.66 to 7.01) and dislocation rate of 4.79% (95% confidence interval 3.02 to 7.53), was found. CONCLUSIONS: Literature concerning the results of total hip arthroplasty as a conversion is limited. The risk of revision after conversion of hemiarthroplasty is higher compared to primary total hip arthroplasty.

Analyzing Learning Curve Effects: Total Ankle Replacement Design Switch and Long-Term Survival.

Different aspects of the learning curve in total ankle replacement (TAR) have been studied in the short to mid-term, with 30 cases often considered critical. However, its impact on long-term (10- and 15-year) survival remains unclear. Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed 77 consecutive TARs performed by one orthopedic surgeon. The main outcome was long-term survival between cases 1-30 and 31-77 using the Kaplan-Meier with Competing Risk Analyses. Secondarily, we used Moving Average Method with LOESS regression to confirm the learning curve based on the perioperative complications. Thirdly, associations between perioperative complications and operation time on long-term survival were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models. The 10-year survival of cases 1-30 was 89.9% (95% CI 70.4-96.5), and of 31-77, 92.4% (95% CI 7745- 97.5) (p = .58). The 15-year survival was 81.8% (95% CI 59.5-91.8) and 74.8% (95% CI 52.4-86.6), respectively (p = .97). The long-term survival rate for the TAR that endured perioperative complication was 96.70% (95% CI 90.28-103.12), and for the uncomplicated TAR 87.50% (95% CI 77.12-97.88%) (p = .24). Operating time nor occurrence of perioperative fractures were significantly associated with long-term survival (p = .11 and 0.26, respectively). However, moving average method revealed a significant decreasing trend with a cut-off value of 33 procedures regarding the marginal probability of perioperative osseous complications (p < .01). In conclusion, surgeons should note a learning curve when adapting arthroplasty procedures. After the prosthesis design switch, the learning curve regarding perioperative osseous complications was confirmed at 33 TAR. The switch did not affect long-term survival.

Surgical Intervention Following a First Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Dislocation Is Worthy of Consideration.

Up to 60% of patients experience recurrence after a first traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (FTASD), which is often defined as having experienced either dislocation or subluxation. Thus surgical intervention after FTASD is worthy of consideration and is guided by the number of patients who need to receive surgical intervention to prevent 1 redislocation (i.e., number needed to treat), (subjective) health benefit, complication risk, and costs. Operative intervention through arthroscopic stabilization can be successful in reducing recurrence risk in FTASD, as has been shown in multiple randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, there is a large "gray area" for the indication of arthroscopic stabilization, and it is therefore heavily debated which patients should receive operative treatment. Previous trials showed widely varying redislocation rates in both the intervention and control group, meta-analysis shows 2% to 19% after operative and 20% to 75% after nonoperative treatment, and redislocation rates may not correlate with patient-reported outcomes. The literature is quite heterogeneous, and a major confounder is time to follow-up. Furthermore, there is insufficient standardization of reporting of outcomes and no consensus on definition of risk factors. As a result, surgery is a reasonable intervention for FTASD patients, but in which patients it best prevents redislocation requires additional refinement.

Wide Range in Complication Rates Following Elbow Arthroscopy in Adult and Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of complications associated with elbow arthroscopy in adults and children. METHODS: A literature search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Studies reporting complications or reoperations after elbow arthroscopy with at least 5 patients were included. Based on the Nelson classification, the severity of complications was categorized as minor or major. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized clinical trials, and nonrandomized trials were assessed using the Methodological Items for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. RESULT: A total of 114 articles were included with 18,892 arthroscopies (16,815 patients). A low risk of bias was seen for the randomized studies and a fair quality for the nonrandomized studies. Complication rates ranged from 0% to 71% (median 3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8%-3.3%), and reoperation rates from 0% to 59% (median 2%; 95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%). A total of 906 complications were observed, with transient nerve palsies (31%) as the most frequent complication. According to Nelson classification, 735 (81%) complications were minor and 171 (19%) major. Forty-nine studies reported complications in adults and 10 studies in children, showing a complication rate ranging from 0% to 27% (median 0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.4%) and 0% to 57% (median 1%; 95% CI, 0.4%-3.5%), respectively. A total of 125 complications were observed in adults, with transient nerve palsies (23%) as the most frequent complication, and 33 in children, with loose bodies after surgery (45%) as the most frequent complication. CONCLUSIONS: Predominantly low-level evidence studies demonstrate varying complication rates (median 3%, range 0%-71%) and reoperation rates (median 2%, range 0%-59%) after elbow arthroscopy. Higher complication rates are observed after more complex surgery. The incidence and type of complications can aid surgeons in patient counseling and refining surgical techniques to further reduce the complication rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; systematic review of Level I-IV studies.

High resorption rates following glenoid augmentation procedures do not seem to lead to higher recurrence rates or worse clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Bone augmentation techniques show a relatively high complication rate, which might be due to graft non-union and resorption. It is unclear which augmentation techniques demonstrate the highest amount of non-union and resorption and whether this leads to worse clinical or functional outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this review was (i) to compare non-union and resorption rates between surgical approaches, procedures, graft types, donor sites and fixation methods regarding clinical and functional outcomes and (ii) determine whether high non-union or resorption rates lead to less favorable clinical or functional outcomes. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statements were followed. PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid) and Cochrane Library were searched on December 15th 2021 for studies examining bone graft non-union or resorption using radiograph or CT following glenoid augmentation to treat anterior shoulder dislocation. RESULTS: The search resulted in 103 inclusions, comprising 5,128 glenoid augmentations. When comparing pooled proportions of bony union, graft fracture rate, hardware failure rate, recurrence rate, return to sports and Rowe score, most results were similar between approaches, procedures, graft types, donor sites and fixation methods. High resorption rates were seen for allograft augmentation (74.3; 95% CI: 39.8-92.7) compared to autograft augmentation (15.5; 95% CI 10.1-23.2), but this was not associated with higher recurrence rates or worse clinical outcomes. Meta-analyses (8 studies; 494 patients) demonstrated no difference in incomplete and complete non-union rates between arthroscopic and open procedures; however, both analyses showed substantial heterogeneity. Higher partial resorption rates were observed on CT (48.0; 95% CI 43.3-52.7) compared to radiograph (14.1; 95% CI 10.9-18.1). Three studies comprising 267 shoulders demonstrated a higher rate of non-union and recurrence in smokers, whereas one study comprising 38 shoulders did not. CONCLUSION: Non-union and resorption rates were similar among procedures, grafts and fixation methods. Higher resorption rates were observed in allografts, but this was not associated with higher recurrence rates or worse clinical outcomes. Pooling data demonstrated substantial heterogeneity and definitions varied among studies, warranting more standardized measuring. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Association Between Surface Modifications for Biologic Fixation and Aseptic Loosening of Uncemented Total Knee Arthroplasties.

BACKGROUND: Various surface modifications are used in uncemented total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) to enhance bony ingrowth and longevity of implants. This study aimed to identify which surface modifications are used, whether they are associated with different revision rates for aseptic loosening, and which are underperforming compared to cemented implants. METHODS: Data on all cemented and uncemented TKAs used between 2007 and 2021 were obtained from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Uncemented TKAs were divided into groups based on their surface modifications. Revision rates for aseptic loosening and major revisions were compared between groups. Kaplan-Meier, Competing-Risk, Log-rank tests, and Cox regression analyses were used. In total, 235,500 cemented and 10,749 uncemented primary TKAs were included. The different uncemented TKA groups included the following: 1,140 porous-hydroxyapatite (HA); 8,450 Porous-uncoated; 702 Grit-blasted-uncoated; and 172 Grit-blasted-Titanium-nitride (TiN) implants. RESULTS: The 10-year revision rates for aseptic loosening and major revision of the cemented TKAs were 1.3 and 3.1%, and for uncemented TKAs 0.2 and 2.3% (porous-HA), 1.3 and 2.9% (porous-uncoated), 2.8 and 4.0% (grit-blasted-uncoated), and 7.9% and 17.4% (grit-blasted-TiN), respectively. Both type of revision rates varied significantly between the uncemented groups (log-rank tests, P < .001, P < .001). All grit-blasted implants had a significantly higher risk of aseptic loosening (P < .01), and porous-uncoated implants had a significantly lower risk of aseptic loosening than cemented implants (P = .03) after 10 years. CONCLUSION: There were 4 main uncemented surface modifications identified, with different revision rates for aseptic loosening. Implants with porous-HA and porous-uncoated had the best revision rates, at least equal to cemented TKAs. Grit-blasted implants with and without TiN underperformed, possibly due to the interaction of other factors.

Increased risk of aseptic loosening for posterior stabilized compared with posterior cruciate-retaining uncemented total knee replacements: a cohort study of 13,667 knees from the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While registry studies have suggested a higher risk of revision for posterior-stabilized (PS) compared with posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee replacements (TKR) using cement, it is unknown whether this is also the case for uncemented TKR. We aimed to compare the revision rates of PS and CR designs in patients receiving primary uncemented TKR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from the Dutch arthroplasty register (LROI) was analyzed, comprising 12,226 uncemented primary CR TKRs and 750 uncemented PS TKRs registered between 2007 and 2022. Competing risk and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to compare revision rates, risks of revision, and reasons for revision between groups. Sensitivity analyses were performed to analyze the risk, concerning the 5 most commonly used implants and performing hospitals for each group. RESULTS: Uncemented PS TKRs had higher 10-year revision rates for any reason and aseptic loosening (6.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.6-9.2 and 3.9%, CI 2.6-6.7) compared with uncemented CR TKRs (4.2%, CI 3.8-4.7 and 1.4%, CI 1.2-1.7). PS TKRs were 1.4 and 2.5 times more likely to be revised for any reason and aseptic loosening, respectively. These results remained consistent after adjustment for age, sex, BMI, previous surgeries, bearing mobility, and surface modification, with sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: We found that uncemented PS implants have a higher rate of revision than uncemented CR implants, mainly due to a higher risk of aseptic loosening.

Lower revision rates for cemented fixation in a long-term survival analysis of three different LCS designs.

BACKGROUND: In primary Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA), it is still not clear if cemented or uncemented fixation has the best long-term survival. The Low Contact Stress (LCS) mobile-bearing (MB) knee system was introduced in 1977. The aim of this study is to investigate the long-term survival of this design with a minimum of 15-year follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed, with the primary endpoint for survival defined as revision. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the association between type of fixation and the risk of revision, while correcting for potential confounders (diagnosis, design, age and sex). RESULTS: 1271 cases were included with inflammatory joint disease (IJD) (657 cases) and non-IJD (614 cases). TKAs were performed cemented in 522 cases and uncemented in 749 cases. A bicruciate retaining design was used in 180 cases, a rotating platform design in 174 cases and an anterior posterior glide posterior cruciate-retaining (PCR) design in 916 cases. Cumulative incidence of component revision at 15 years was 2.7% (95% CI 1.6; 4.5) for cemented and 10% (95% CI 8.1; 12.4) for uncemented TKA, respectively. The 20-year cumulative incidence was 2.9% (95% CI 1.7; 4.7) for cemented and 10.9% (95% CI 8.8; 13.4) for uncemented TKA, respectively. Age, non-IJD and PCR design were associated with a significantly higher risk of revision, regardless of the type of fixation. CONCLUSION: Long-term survival for patients undergoing cemented or uncemented TKA using the LCS MB system revealed lower revision rates for cemented fixation. Revision risk was higher in younger, non-IJD patients who had the PCR design, regardless of the type of fixation. For the LCS MB TKA design, it is recommended to use cemented fixation.

No common peroneal nerve palsies found after a peroneal nerve release prior to TKA in fixed valgus deformities (a retrospective cohort study).

PURPOSE: The main purpose of this study was to analyse the incidence of Common Peroneal Nerve Palsy (CPNP) after Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) for all alignments. Secondarily, the efficiency and safety of a Peroneal Nerve Release (PNR) prior to TKA in preoperative severe fixed valgus deformities were evaluated to prevent a CPNP. METHODS: Overall, 7612 TKAs were performed in the institution from 2009 to 2021. 1913 TKAs were performed by three surgeons, who consistently performed a PNR in case of a fixed valgus deformity of (1) more than 15°, or (2) more than 10° but in combination with a flexion contracture of more than 15°. Patients with fixed valgus deformities of more than 10° were identified (81 knees) and a comparison was made between the patients who received a PNR (26 knees) and those who did not receive a PNR (55 knees). Data for the analysis were collected from patient medical files and were compared with the Chi2-test or Fisher Exact test. RESULTS: A CPNP incidence of 0.2% (16/7612) was found after TKA for all alignments together. No CPNP cases (0%) were developed in the PNR-group, compared to five (9%) in the non-PNR group (p = NS). A larger preoperative valgus angle (17° vs 13°, p < 0.001) and flexion contracture (10° vs 3°, p < 0.001) was present in the PNR group compared with the non-PNR group. No PNR-related complications were reported. CONCLUSION: The CPNP incidence in this study is consistent with the previous literature. Furthermore, although not significant, the group that received a PNR procedure developed fewer CPNPs compared to the group without PNR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study, III.

Eighteen-Year Outcome of an Uncemented "Meniscal Bearing", Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee System.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the survival, radiographic, and functional outcomes of the uncemented "meniscal bearing" cruciate-retaining Low Contact Stress (LCS) (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN, USA) total knee system after a long-term follow-up period. METHODS: A total of 56 patients (67 knees) who received an uncemented "meniscal bearing" cruciate-retaining LCS total knee system between 2000 and 2005 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were 64 ± 7 years old with osteoarthritis as the indication for arthroplasty. The survivorship, radiographs, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analyzed. RESULTS: The all-cause survival after 5, 10, 15, and 18 years was 97.0%, 93.8%, 92.0%, and 92.0%, respectively. Survival with revision for aseptic loosening as an end point was 98.4% at 5 years and 96.7% at 10, 15, and 18 years. Reasons of revisions and their interventions consisted of anterior knee pain requiring secondary patellar resurfacing (n = 3, 60%), polyethylene wear requiring an insert exchange (n = 2, 40%), and bearing spin-out requiring an insert exchange (n = 1, 20%). Two of the 5 revision cases developed aseptic loosening of the tibial component later on during the study period. A radiographic analysis demonstrated radiolucent lines in 14/47 implants (30%) after 12.0 ± 3.8 years, but were not revised, respectively. After a mean follow-up of 18.5 years, PROMs (n = 20) were found comparable with the 1-year postoperative PROMs of all implants reported by the LROI (Dutch Arthroplasty Register). CONCLUSION: This present study demonstrates good results of the uncemented "meniscal bearing" cruciate-retaining LCS total knee system toward survival and functional outcomes after a long-term median follow-up of 17.5 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic retrospective cohort study, LEVEL III.

Long-Term Clinical Performance of an Uncemented, Mobile Bearing, Anterior Stabilized Knee System and the Impact of Previous Knee Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to report long-term survival and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of the uncemented low contact stress total knee system and explore the potential association between prior knee surgery and outcomes. METHODS: A total of 1,289 procedures in 1,068 patients performed between 2000 and 2010 (mean follow-up 11.1 years) were retrospectively identified. All patients received an uncemented, mobile bearing, anterior stabilized (cruciate sacrificing) knee implant with a porous coating on the bone-prosthesis surface. Implant survival was calculated using competing risk analyses at 5, 10, and 15 years. PROMs include the Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score (domain function), EuroQol 5D-3L, and Numeric Rating Scale for pain during rest and activity, and for overall satisfaction. The association between previous surgery (no surgery versus meniscectomy versus arthroscopy versus corrective osteotomies) and implant survival was assessed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis; the association with PROMs was assessed with multivariable linear regression analyses. RESULTS: Survival after 5, 10, and 15 years was 97.0% (95% CI 96.0-98.0), 96.3% (95% CI 95.3-97.3), and 96.0% (95% CI 94.8-97.2), respectively. The most common reason for revision was aseptic loosening of the tibial tray (23/49 revisions, 47%). All PROMs were comparable with the reference values of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. History of knee surgery prior to TKA was not associated with survival or PROMs. CONCLUSION: The low contact stress uncemented mobile bearing knee implant provides excellent survival and patient satisfaction in our cohort. Previous surgery does not seem to compromise results in our population.

Lower leg symmetry: a Q3D-CT analysis.

PURPOSE: In fracture and realignment surgery, the contralateral unaffected side is often used as a model or template for the injured bone even though clinically valuable quantitative data of bilateral symmetry are often unavailable. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to quantify and present the bilateral symmetry of the tibia and fibula. METHODS: Twenty bilateral lower-leg CT scans were acquired in healthy volunteers. The left and right tibia and fibula were segmented resulting in three-dimensional polygons for geometrical analyses (volume, surface and length). The distal and proximal segment of the right tibia of each individual was subsequently matched to the left tibia to quantify alignment differences (translation and rotation). Bone symmetry on group level was assessed using the Student's t test and intra-individual differences were assessed using mixed-models analyses. RESULTS: Intra-individuals differences were found for tibia volume (5.2 ± 3.3 cm3), tibia surface (5.2 ± 3.3 cm2), translations in the lateral (X-axis; 9.3 ± 8.9 mm) and anterior direction (Y-axis; 7.1 ± 7.0 mm), for tibia length (translation along Z-axis: 3.1 ± 2.4 mm), varus/valgus (φz: 1.7o ± 1.4°), and endotorsion/exotorsion (φz: 4.0o ± 2.7°). CONCLUSION: This study shows intra-individual tibia asymmetry in both geometric and alignment parameters of which the surgeon needs to be aware in pre-operative planning. The high correlation between tibia and fibula length allows the ipsilateral fibula to aid in estimating the original tibia length post-injury. Future studies need to establish whether the found asymmetry is clinically relevant when the contralateral side is used as reference in corrective surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III cohort study.

Ten-year revision rates of contemporary total ankle arthroplasties equal 22%. A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criterion for hip replacements is a (projected) revision rate of less than 5% after 10 years. No such criterion is available for ankle prostheses. The objective of the current study is to compare survival rates of contemporary primary ankle prostheses to the hip-benchmark. METHODS: The PRISMA methodology was used. Eligible for inclusion were clinical studies reporting revision rates of currently available primary total ankle prostheses. Data was extracted using preconstructed forms. The total and prosthesis-specific annual revision rate was calculated. RESULTS: Fifty-seven articles of eight different ankle prostheses were included (n = 5371), totaling 513 revisions at an average 4.6 years of follow-up. An annual revision rate of 2.2 was found (i.e. an expected revision rate of 22% at 10 years). CONCLUSIONS: The expected 10-year revision rate of contemporary ankle prostheses is lower than the current benchmark for hip prostheses.